Google Scholar: cites
Comparative study of electrical and rheological properties of different solutions used in endoscopic mucosal resection
Bon, Ignacio (Institut Germans Trias i Pujol. Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol)
Bartolí Solé, Ramon (Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology)
Cano Sarabia, Antonia María (Institut Català de Nanociència i Nanotecnologia)
Ossa, Napoleón de la (Institut Germans Trias i Pujol. Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol)
Moreno de Vega, Vicente (Institut Germans Trias i Pujol. Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol)
Marín Fernández, Ingrid (Institut Germans Trias i Pujol. Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol)
Boix, Jaume (Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology)
Lorenzo Zúñiga, Vicente (Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology)

Data: 2019
Resum: Background and Aim: The study of electrical and rheological properties of solutions to carry out endoscopic resection procedures could determinate the best candidate. An ex vivo study with porcine stomachs was conducted to analyze electrical resistivity (R) and rheological properties (temperature, viscosity, height and lasting of the cushion) of different substances used in these techniques. Methods: Tested solutions were: 0. 9% saline (S), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), Gliceol (GC), hyaluronic acid 2% (HA), Pluronic-F127 20% (PL), saline with 10% glucose (GS), Gelaspan (GP), Covergel-BiBio (TB) and PRP with TB (PRP+TB). Measurements of electrical and rheological properties were done at 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60 min after submucosal injection. Results: Solutions showed a wide variability of transepithelial R after submucosal injection. Substances able to maintain the highest R 60 min postinjection were TB (7 × 10 Ω), HA (7 × 10 Ω) and PL (7 × 10 Ω). Protective solutions against deep thermal injury (Tª lower than 60°C) were PL (47. 6°C), TB (55°C) and HA (56. 63°C). Shortest time to carry out resections were observed with GC (17. 66″), PRP (20. 3″) and GS (23. 45″). Solutions with less cushion decrease (<25%) after 60 min were TB (11. 74%), PL (18. 63%) and PRP (22. 12%). Conclusions: Covergel-BiBio, PL and HA were the best solutions with long-term protective effects (transepithelial R, lower thermal injury and less cushion decrease). Solutions with quicker resection time were GC, PRP and GS.
Drets: Tots els drets reservats.
Llengua: Anglès.
Document: article ; recerca ; acceptedVersion
Matèria: Electrical property ; Endoscopic mucosal resection ; Endoscopic submucosal dissection ; Rheological property ; Submucosal injection
Publicat a: Digestive endoscopy, Vol. 31, Issue 3 (May 2019) , p. 276-282, ISSN 1443-1661

DOI: 10.1111/den.13297


Disponible a partir de: 2020-05-31
Postprint

El registre apareix a les col·leccions:
Documents de recerca > Documents dels grups de recerca de la UAB > Centres i grups de recerca (producció científica) > Ciències de la salut i biociències > Institut d'Investigació en Ciencies de la Salut Germans Trias i Pujol (IGTP)
Documents de recerca > Documents dels grups de recerca de la UAB > Centres i grups de recerca (producció científica) > Ciències > Institut Català de Nanociència i Nanotecnologia (ICN2)
Articles > Articles de recerca
Articles > Articles publicats

 Registre creat el 2019-07-02, darrera modificació el 2019-07-05



   Favorit i Compartir